I think post-colonialism is one of the major topics presented or discussed in this movie. A lot of you might know that in post-colonial study, the repressed psychology of an oppressed group after being oppressed and enslaved is the subject that's discussed at length. Post-colonial study shows that the evil of oppression and slavery that steals people's freedom will follow the victims even after the oppression and the slavery ends. The inferiority-complex and irrational comfort on being controlled felt by the oppressed group are two of destructive results that are generated by the oppression and the slavery.
In Manderlay, we witness that there is something wrong about the freed slaves psychology. At the end of the movie, the freed slaves are unable to accept their freedom and bear the responsibilities that follow. They have been oppressed so long that they only feel comfortable living their lives simply by being submissive and controlled by.
Another subject of discussion in post-colonial study is about how the west defines the world based on its own standard.
In Manderlay, Grace, as the representation of the west, thinks that democracy is the best system that should be applied everywhere. Little did she know, the freed slaves (with all their repressed psychology and inferiority-complex) are not ready to embrace the power of democracy given to them.
Well, it doesn't mean that the movie concludes that the freed slaves have to be in oppression all the time. It is a messy situation and the movie shows us how evil oppression and slavery are.
My List:
http://www.imdb.com/list/2oNF6wXyc5k/

to amuse you
my vote history:
http://imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=27424531

This message has been deleted.

What's the point of any film? To entertain; to provoke thought and discussion; to make the audience feel something, emotionally, either through identification with a central character (or characters) or through the experience of a dramatised situation. I mean, what's the point of Duck Soup? What's the Point of Jules and Jim? What's the point of Avatar?
The point is whatever the individual takes from it.

I think its about how we as humans have good intentions, but they can turn out wrong because of our human nature.What Grace taught them was good, but people's own selfishness and anger got in the way (the killing, the money, Grace being seduced) Also about how humans will take the easy way instead the the hard way out or through a difficult situation even if it isn't right. SPOILERS It wasn't right, but it was easieir for the slaves to go back to being slaves instead of being free. Grace could have ignored their taunts, but it was easier to release her anger.

To perplex dimwits, perhaps.

It's a tale about the Nietzschian topic of human need for domination and subjugation - in this case, the way that defines the individual's search for freedom, or the lack of that search.
Any further questions?
Last film watched:
Non, ou A V Glria de Mandar
by Manoel de Oliveira - 6/10

The point of the film was to give people food for thought and reveal that everything isn't so cut and dry.
Exactly. And it was entertaining too.

The point of the film was to give people food for thought and reveal that everything isn't so cut and dry. It's a film about perception and in this case it's about how we define freedom. I think von Tier chose the best environment to showcase his theory.

I agree. I only wish that I had written it.

Beautiful reply.

A bleeding heart liberal who couldn't understand that freedom for some is only another kind of slavery.

It's about the war in Iraq.

mrura, I agree with what you have posted on Manderlay.
The movie is a good piece of artwork that expresses the human condition after a life of bondage and trying confront a new way of life.
I think Manderlay is a fictional interpretation of this human condition,which does a good job of stimulating further dialogue about this subject. There will be people who see this as someone judging them, some will be in denial, some will reject it because of its graphic nature but one thing for sure its a strong piece of artwork and entertainment for those that understand it.

MrWall21,
In an earlier post on this thread, you state:
"Since being forced to write book reports in grade school I have been troubled by the insistence that fiction 'teaches' us something. I would also have to write about what I 'learned' from the piece of fiction. But fiction is made-up and can be crafted to illustrate any point."
Then, in this post, you state:
"If you see art as nothing more than entertainment, then I think that devalues it."
Since we are on the thread of a fictional film, I am assuming you believe that fictional films are art. On one hand, you will only value art if it is MORE than entertainment, in other words, if it has SOME MEANING. On the other hand, you abhor being forced to find meaning in fiction because it is "made-up." So which is it? Is it wrong to try to find meaning in fiction or is it wrong NOT to try to find meaning in fiction?
From reading your posts on multiple threads on this board, it is clear that you also abhor Mr. Von Trier, as evidenced by your statements:

1. "I know Von Trier, for all his many, many, many failings as a director/storyteller/human being "
2. "Lars has no sense of drama or what makes something engaging or meaningful."
3. "His other films are likewise pointless and painful."
4. And the add on comment at the end of one post that has absolutely NOTHING to do with any other statement you make, "He added the VON himself to sound more impressive." Yes, MrWall21, people in the public eye (and even some of those who aren't) sometimes change their names to something they prefer, for whatever reason.
   My second question is that if you hate Lars Von Trier so much, why do you waste so much of your time watching his films and coming on the boards to criticize him? Wouldn't your time be better spent watching films you actually value?

"A story about a group of freed slaves who decided they were too selfish and stupid to be free and chose to return to slavery is one thing. Lars made this a story about black slaves in America."
I'm not sure they were portrayed as being 'selfish and stupid' but rather frightened and conditioned, other than that I have to agree with this point and I think this is where the film put some of us off. Like i said in a (way too long ;0) post, it's a very interesting study, and gives food for thought, which I believe is the purpose of most of Trier's films in general, to make people reflect on different, and relatively difficult issues. However, this film I think is simply terribly clumsy.
I don't think it necessarily has to be historically accurate, it's a fiction and within that there are different types of realisms. But it does feel like he reduces the entire black community to this one attitude and that is rather painful. Furthermore in this day and age many a people can be "accused" of the same cowardly inertia, which is more due to a social and political infrastructure that is increasingly inhuman, egotistic and forever based on the powers-that-be's succesfull attempts to domesticate and diseducate those they rule to gain even greater control. This, I think would have been a more relevant point today, but I guess you can't rewrite someone's film can ya?
Addressing the problems facing the black community further divides us and I think his take on all this is slightly outdated, a tiny bit irrelevant, and although i don't expect you can brush away 300+ years of oppression in 30+ years [ ;0) lilmamacash], but I was left with a general feeling of ignorance regarding the issues he tries to address.
Take care and my love to lilmama & cubanato who were kind enough to read through my extensive blabla.
x

I suppose my problem is that in his films I see Lars's philosophy and political views which relate to the real world and even if someone finds the pendantic agony of his movies entertaining there is indeed something else there. Lars has a message and that is why his films have often been controversial. One point is that essentailly the story of slavery in America is a very real one, slavery happened and so did emancipation and Lars is intertwining those images with his own convictions and opinions, blatantly anti-historically. A story about a group of freed slaves who decided they were too selfish and stupid to be free and chose to return to slavery is one thing. Lars made this a story about black slaves in America.
I have no problem with Europeans who criticize America WHEN THEY KNOW WHAT THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT. If you see art as nothing more than entertainment, then I think that devalues it. And of course, I have trouble seeing it as entertaining.

i find his movies very entertaining & i agree thats all a movie need to do - thats its purpose in my eyes

ok, i suppose it possible. it still doesn't address anything else i said.
specifically, it's neither necessary nor more effective to make your point in documentary form.
i enjoyed both movies well enough and eagerly await the final part.

Now that I think of it, I can remember seeing many documentaries from ers from which everyone is now dead. I saw one about the American Civil War, the Roman Empire, and the French Revolution to name a few.

Maybe i am, but surely not the first to think it. I watch movies to be entertained, and i found both Dogville and Manderlay quite entertaining. How do most people see them?
I'm not so sure it won't "touch" anyone. And i'm not so sure the point is to "change anyone's mind". Did Farenheit 9/11 change anyone's mind i doubt it. People tend to see what they want to see and believe what they want to believe.
All i'm saying is that, for me, a movie needn't do more than entertain or intrigue me in some way to be considered successful in my eyes. If it gets me thinking about a social issue, even for just a few minutes, then all better but it's not essential.
By the way, it would have been rather tough to make a documentary about an era from which essentially everyone is dead. With no live witnesses/interviews, don't you think just about any "documentary" movie made could be spun to fit a director's viewpoints just as easily as any work of fiction? Hell, again look at 9/11 every who disagreed with Michael Moore's viewpoint just screamed that he skewed the facts to serve his own purpose. Or many just refused to see the movie at all. I think delivering a message in a work of fiction reaches a broader audience and, ironically, comes off as LESS manipulated than a documentary.
Also by the way, i didn't intend to insult you by calling your view simplistic. Perhaps, "idealistic" was a better choice of words.

You are the first person I've ever heard call a Lars von Trier movie "entertaining". Shocking. As for calling my criticism "simplisitc", I found you're response rather simplistic. I was trying to demonstrate that the movie won't touch ANYONE or change ANYONE's mind, and you interpreted that as meaning that it must change EVERYONE's mind.

So, if all the racists of the world don't see a movie and change their behaviour, does that immediately make the film pointless? Is every fictional movie representation of the holocaust useless if it doesn't end neo-nazism? The "logic" of your argument is astoundingly simplistic and unrealistic.
The movie was entertaining on it's own, simply as a story. In addition, we are given another view on a historical subject that may just open a few eyes and get people thinking. It needn't change the world to have a point.
Politics aside for a minute i just want to say that from beginning to end i couldn't STAND Bryce Dallas Howard's "acting" in this movie. i never disliked her before, but after this, i'm starting to.

Pseudo-intellectual never fits anywhere, except in the oversized, constantly-running mouths of other pseudo-intellectuals.
"BE ATTITUDE FOR GAINS!" Bodhidarma